Boundaries of Legitimate Debate: Right-Wing Extremism in Norwegian News Media in the Decade After the July 22, 2011 Attacks by Anna Grøndahl Larsen
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 15, Issue 3 Boundaries of Legitimate Debate: Right-wing Extremism in Norwegian News Media in the Decade after the July 22, 2011 Attacks by Anna Grøndahl Larsen Abstract How to deal with voices deemed deviant and extremist is a recurring topic of debate, including questions such as whether deviant actors and ideas should be silenced or included in public debates. As with terrorist attacks in other parts of the world, the attacks in Norway on July 22, 2011 ignited discussions on the limits of legitimate debate, including the role of mainstream politicians and news media in setting the boundaries for what is appropriate in public debates. This article explores news debates on right-wing extremism in the decade after the attack, shedding light on how boundaries between legitimacy and deviance were drawn and negotiated. Analyzing articles on right-wing extremism in two national news outlets in Norway (NRK and VG) between 2013 and 2019, the author explores who got to speak and define the debate, to what extent actors deemed extremist were granted a voice, and how boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate political actors were negotiated. First, the analyses show that although the coverage was dominated by elites, actors deemed extremist were relatively prominent sources. Second, political and cultural elites engaged in continuous negotiations over the boundaries of legitimate and appropriate debate. However, third and relatedly, the analysis illustrates that debates concerning possible links between the views of legitimate elite actors—such as politicians in parliament—and deviant extremists were challenging to initiate. Keywords: Boundary-work, deviant voices, extremism, journalism, mainstream, media, news access, news sources, terrorism, violent extremism Introduction How to deal with voices deemed deviant and extremist is repeatedly debated across the globe, often in terms of whether deviant actors and ideas should be silenced or included in public debate. While such questions are not new, in recent years, persistent calls for the silencing of a range of different voices has given rise to notions such as “cancel culture” and “deplatforming”. When related to violent extremism in particular, terrorist attacks tend to spark debates concerning how the news media should report on perpetrators and their views, with opinions ranging from inclusion of extremist voices to a news black-out. The present article addresses such issues, focusing on boundary drawings and negotiations related to right-wing extremism in Norwegian news media in the decade after the 2011 attacks. As with attacks in other parts of the world, the July 22, 2011 attacks in Norway [1] ignited discussions on the limits of legitimate debate, including the role of mainstream politicians and news media in setting the boundaries of permissible public debate. In the aftermath of the attacks, mainstream media definitions of what constituted legitimate and deviant actors were challenged. The attacks fueled debates on the question of how journalism and news media should deal with “deviant” ideas and actors, and where the boundaries of legitimate debate should be drawn. This included debates that specifically focused on the inclusion of deviant voices. Here, some opinion leaders argued that extremist voices should be included to a larger extent in the news, in order to prevent online echo chambers and to facilitate public debate and denunciation of extremist views (the so-called “pressure cooker thesis”). Others underlined the need for restrictive editorial practices when it comes to the inclusion of voices deemed extremist, arguing that inclusion could serve to spread, amplify and legitimize extreme views.[2] In line with the most prominent argument among media elites, pointing out that the boundaries of inclusion should be broadened, mainstream news debates were opened up to previously largely silenced far-right actors in the months after the attacks.[3] Simultaneously, however, and similar to the response to attacks elsewhere [4], established news media engaged in processes of solidarity and ISSN 2334-3745 96 June 2021 PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 15, Issue 3 consolation, serving as guardians of appropriate discourse, excluding voices that were perceived as offensive [5], and implementing stricter control of online debates.[6] In terms of the political response, immediately after the attacks, the Norwegian prime minister defined these as an attack on Norwegian society, community and democracy. In short, a key narrative was established, where the common “we” was attacked and people needed to stand up against the terrorist [7] – a narrative that was largely echoed in established news media. Although there were subsequently attempts to make a more structural explanation of the attacks, including attention to anti-Muslim sentiment and rhetoric online [8], the key narrative largely remained that Norwegian society and democracy had been attacked by a terrorist. The consensus related to societal unity against the terrorist meant that in the months following the attacks, party politics were largely absent from the public debate when it came to the dual attack and its perpetrator [9]. This article focuses on how the news debate evolved over time. Extending extant insights into boundary negotiations in the aftermath of crisis, the article explores characteristics of boundary drawings and boundary negotiations in established news media after the more immediate focus on societal and judicial responses to the attacks had declined. More specifically, analyzing articles on right-wing extremism in two national news outlets in Norway (Norsk rikskringkasting - NRK and Verdens Gang - VG) between 2013 and 2019, the article sheds light on: i) who got to speak and define the debate, ii) to what extent actors deemed extremist were granted a voice, and iii) how boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate political actors and views were negotiated and drawn. As such, the article contributes insights into how a right-wing extremist attack, and the dominant narrative of an attack, may over time have a bearing on the public debate and on newsroom practices of inclusion. Moreover, the analysis seeks to gain insights into how boundaries between legitimacy and deviance are drawn and which actors are the primary definers when key democratic principles are at stake. Background: Immigration and Criticism of Immigration in Norway Immigration has for the past decades received extensive attention in Norwegian news media, with emphasis on questions such as who should be admitted, how immigrants should be integrated into society, and what the effect of immigration on society are.[10] Research on immigration critics, in Norway and in other countries, have found that while immigration critics are not silenced, they have tended to be presented as deviant.[11] Hagelund and Kjeldsen (2021), for example, find that news stories on immigration critics “are hardly ever written to an audience where anti-immigration opinions are assumed to exist. In this sense, immigration critics are constituted as outsiders to a sphere of political normalcy.” Simultaneously, as Norway has over time become an increasingly multicultural society, there is evidence to suggest the emergence of a normalization of anti-immigrant attitudes, in politics and in the news media.[12] For example, the right-wing populist Progress Party, which has as its main focus the introduction of strict(er) immigration policies [13], joined a conservative-led government in 2013 – a change that serves to illustrate the prominence of immigration on the public agenda, and indicates the broadening of what constitutes legitimate debate on immigration.[14] In addition, over the past decade, alternative right-wing media sites, characterized by skepticism – or hostility – towards immigrants and Muslims have been established and/or received increased attention. Some of these sites can be regarded as placed somewhere between “the sphere of legitimacy” and “the sphere of deviance” – whereas mainstream news reporting and debates on the one hand regularly present these sites as deviant [15], while, on the other hand, the editors of such sites are regularly invited into mainstream news debates.[16] However, some other right-wing sites, holding more extreme nationalistic and xenophobic positions, are firmly placed within “the sphere of deviance”. Yet, the more modest sites may indicate a shift pertaining to what is understood as legitimate political debate.[17] Although it should be noted that trust in alternative right-wing media is significantly lower than trust in established news media, and readership figures remain relatively low (5-8 percent).[18] Moreover, despite the increased normalization of anti-immigrant attitudes, as reflected in ISSN 2334-3745 97 June 2021 PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 15, Issue 3 politics and in established and alternative news media, the Norwegian population’s attitudes to immigration are relatively positive, and positive attitudes have also increased in the past decade.[19] Theoretical Perspectives: the Boundaries of Public Debate This article draws on the notion of boundaries to study the ways in which the limits of deviance and right-wing extremism are defined and negotiated in the news media. As central parts of public debate, the news media can be conceived both as actors whose practices shape and guard the boundaries of public debate and as arenas in which contestations over the boundaries